Unvaccinated New York-based staff at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) risk losing their jobs, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said on Monday in a further indication that banks are getting tougher on employees as they return to work.
"If you aren't going to get vaxxed, you won't be able to work in that office. We're not going to pay you not to work in the office," Dimon said. "We want people to get vaccinated."
If the Supreme Court decides federally mandated vaccines are unconstitutional, then what happens to childhood vaccines, such as MMR?
Yeah, "what they want" never included coerced human medical experimentation. Nice try though.
When HR says you need a lobotomy in order to continue to work here, will you line up for one? Because they can, right? I mean, they can coerce you to do anything, right? Wrong.
When are companies going to tell employees to stop smoking or you're fired? Same exact thing. Oh wait, that isn't part of the current political climate.
Need the unvaccinated to relinquish their beds so we have plenty of beds for the obese.
Your disinformation warfare ain't working, son.
Get ready everyone, we're about to see a massive pivot in propaganda, errr, marketing, when it comes to COVID. All part of the plan to declare victory and not make the midterms hurt so bad. Keep your eyes/ears open, it's already starting and will be obvious to all soon.
Being unvaxxed does plenty of harm to stroke, heart attack, and auto accident victims who are unable to receive the care they need because hospital beds are full up with unvaccinated Covid cases.
If the unvaccinated would just stay home and drink horse de-wormer when they got sick nobody would care what they did. But they dont. They show up at hospitals and beg the people there to save their lives.
They’re overwhelming the hospitals and burning out the health care practitioners and that is why they are despised.
Post ID: @hnu+1eKYTDTL
All the anti vaxxers filling up hospitals will disagree. NOW they want the vaccine as they fight to breathe and stay alive and it is too late.
Daily reminder: If vaccines were ineffective, trolls wouldn't be here hours a day trying to convince you of it.
It's easy to get caught up in a soundbite from a CEO when there are no details.
No comment on the definition of vaccinated, does it require boosters? How many, how recently, how often?
What about those people who have a a natural immunity by having caught the virus recently?
And not one person asking why after 2 years of being able to work from home are they requiring a return to office? If due to productivity then that's a simple management fix. If it's because WFH doesn't allow people to be in awe of senior leaders well that's another issue.
Remember this virus can be caught and spread by the vaccinated, the issue is more around severity of symptoms. So do not for one second believe Diamon has any employee's best interest at heart.
The only contradiction here is on your side. Roe v Wade is bad 'law' because there's nothing about ab-----n in the US Constitution, therefore due to the 10th amendment, the authority in that area belongs to the States or The People. It's absolutely logically consistent to say the same thing about vaccination policy. It's not in the US Constitution, therefore it's a State issue. Further, precedent tells us that it's only a state issue within state facilities, not anywhere else. You need certain shots to go to a public school. I'd you don't want them, you don't don't have to go to public schools. That's an entirely different beast from telling everyone coast to coast that if you don't take these dr-gs you can't work anywhere. And no, don't give me that 'its only for certain employees' bullpucky, we ALL know that the minute the mandates survive legal scrutiny, if they did, the feds will move to mandate it for everyone, whether you work for a big employer, a small employer, or don't work at all. It's obvious incrementalism / divide and conquer tactics and the administration has admitted as much openly.
Additionally, mandates even at the state level and within state facilities are only morally justifiable if the vaccination prevents infection / transmission. That's the only way it's justifiable to trample on the rights of the individual. Well, breaking news (to some apparently) these dr-gs don't prevent infection or transmission. Therefore the entire house of cards must fall. It MUST have that to be justifiable. It doesn't, case closed.
So no, there's no hypocrisy on the anti-federal jab side. In both cases it's the federal government seizing power in direct violation of the Constitution. People, including some in black robes, like to pretend that the 10A doesn't exist, but it's one of the most important Amendments to the Constitution.
Post ID: @gbr+1eKYTDTL
People with any sense know that a far right info site has an agenda and what you see there should be taken with a grain of salt.
Post ID: @adb+1eKYTDTL
You'd have the ask the anti Roe V. Wade crowd. Apparently, folks seem to think they have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies but god forbid they tell people to get vaxxed. Government overreach seems to be awful selective these days.
@adb+1eKYTDTL an ab-----n and birth control only impacts 2 people. You going unvaxed impacts the entire population plus the markets. Honestly Jamie cares about the markets. Once your decisions impacts wallstreet it’s time to put actions in place. They tried opening up without a mandate and it didn’t work so now “they” being the establishment will have to take drastic measures to ensure their houses in Montauk have guest this summer. Sorry but even if the Supreme Court overrules the mandate, big businesses will put there own mandates in place, which is what the courts want anyways and they will uphold them. Private businesses are able to do what’s in the best interest of the bottom line. You being unvaxed is not in there best interest. Problem is this is like dominos, one goes down they all go down. Hey maybe your local small business will hire you???? Unless they contract or subcontract for a Fortune 500 and it’s a clause any workers must be vaxed then they too will fold. Hey have you thought about entrepreneurship?
Do you remember when you conservative nuts said this Murcia and businesses should be able to do what they want and run how they want because this Murcia and we have freedoms. Well I guess you missed freedoms also means “at will”. Good Times…
Whatever happened to my body my choice...
If there was any question Dimon was not part of the Neo-Malthusian cabal. Friends with Gates and Epstein and Klaus too.
Post ID: @iyi+1eKYTDTL
Key word being “healthy”.
Imagine doing everything the government tells you with no healthy debate
Uh, anyone at risk of severe shingles in the past 10 years, someone in their sixties, most likely has children in their forties, maybe thirties. The chickenpox vaccine was made available in 1995 and didn’t achieve very widespread use until 2014. I’m in my forties, got chicken pox as a child and my 60s mother got shingles a few years ago. Just another pseudoscientific BS piece from the WSJ where they don’t bother with basic math.
Like it or lump it, no jab no job, and that’s just the way it is.
Tick tock anti-vax nutters. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
WSJ
Slow the Spread? Speeding It May Be Safer
Tamping down on Omicron may increase the risk of an ‘antigenic shift’ to a far deadlier supervariant.
The Omicron variant is spreading across the globe, but so far the strain appears to be less deadly than its predecessors. That’s good news, but here’s a risk that policy makers in every country should appreciate: Policies designed to slow the spread of Omicron may end up creating a supervariant that is more infectious, more virulent and more resistant to vaccines. That would be a man-made disaster.
To minimize that risk, policy makers must tolerate the rapid spread of milder variants. This will require difficult trade-offs, but it will save lives in the long run. We should end mask mandates and social distancing in most settings not because they don’t slow the spread—the usual argument against such measures—but because they probably do.
To understand why, first consider an important scientific distinction, between antigenic drift and antigenic shift. Antigens are molecules—such as the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2—that an immune system detects as foreign. The host immune system then mounts a response.
“Antigenic drift” describes the process by which single-point mutations (small genetic errors) randomly occur during the viral replication process. The result is minor alterations to antigens such as the spike protein. If a point mutation makes the virus less likely to survive, that variant gradually dies off. But if the mutation confers an incremental survival advantage—say, the ability to spread more quickly from one cell to another—then that strain becomes more likely to spread through the population.
Antigenic drift is a gradual, varying process: A single-point mutation alters one peptide, or building block, of a larger protein. Hosts with immunity against a prior strain generally enjoy at least partial immunity against “drifted” variants. This is called “cross-protection.”
Each time an immune host is exposed to a slightly different antigenic variant, the host can tweak its immune response without becoming severely ill. And the more similar the new strain is to the last version the person fought off, the less risky that strain will be to the host.
By contrast, “antigenic shift” refers to a discontinuous quantum leap from one antigen (or set of antigens) to a very different antigen (or set of antigens). New viral strains—such as those that jump from one species to another—tend to emerge from antigenic shift. The biological causes of antigenic shift are often different from those of antigenic drift. For example, the physical swap of whole sections of the genome leads to more significant changes to viral genes than those caused by individual point mutations.
But there’s a sorites paradox: How many unique point mutations collectively constitute an antigenic shift, especially when human hosts are deprived of opportunities to update their immune response to “drifted” variants?
Vaccinated and naturally immune people can revamp their immune response to new viral strains created by antigenic drift. Yet social distancing and masking increase the risk of vaccine-resistant strains from antigenic shift by minimizing opportunities for the vaccinated and naturally immune to tailor their immune responses through periodic exposures to incrementally “drifted” variants.
This is a familiar notion in virology. Take the rise of severe shingles cases over the past decade, partly a result of the widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine. Shingles and chickenpox are caused by the same virus. Before widespread use of the chickenpox vaccine, parents regularly updated their own immunity by getting exposed to chickenpox from their children, or from other adults who were exposed by children. But now that most children are vaccinated against chickenpox and don’t contract it, older adults suffer from more severe cases of shingles.
The absolute risk of a more virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2 is low. That’s because viruses “care” more about propagating themselves than about ki----g the host: Most viruses evolve to become more infectious and less virulent. But this is only a rule of thumb, not a biological law. Like any trend, we should expect a distribution of outcomes around the modal one—and the more iterations you allow, the more likely you are to get an unlikely outcome. Enforcing social-distancing policies amid widespread vaccination makes the emergence of a vaccine-resistant superstrain more likely.
Why not prepare for this outcome simply by developing new vaccines against novel strains more quickly? Because even mRNA vaccines can’t be developed fast enough to outrun a vaccine-resistant supervariant. On Dec. 8, Pfizer committed to delivering its first batch of new vaccines that cover the Omicron variant within 100 days. Yet by mid-March, a significant percentage of the U.S. population will have already been infected with Omicron.
Meanwhile, mask mandates and social-distancing measures will have created fertile ground for new variants that evade vaccination even more effectively. Significant antigenic shifts may create new strains that are increasingly difficult to target with vaccines at all. There are no vaccines for many viruses, despite decades of effort to develop them.
Will relaxing restrictions come at the cost of more hospitalizations and deaths as the next variant starts to spread? Perhaps, but it would reduce the risk of a worst-case scenario and greater loss of life in the long run.
The most important step in fighting the Covid-19 pandemic was the distribution of vaccines. With this milestone now achieved, the global response should shift from preventing the spread to minimizing the probability of an antigenic shift. Whether SARS-CoV-2 was made in a lab is the subject of debate, but let’s make sure we don’t manufacture an even more dangerous strain of the virus with misguided policies.
The House of Morgan loves financing treachery, and this situation is no exception.
Does that mean some new executives will become available for is to hire?
Laughing at my rights people, as Charlie is sure to follow his mentor Jamie.